Why Term Limits Are a Dangerous Fantasy: The Hidden Costs of a Superficial Fix

Liberty Election Reform & Political Integrity
1

Introduction: The Empty Promise of Term Limits

Term limits are often hailed as the silver bullet to fix America’s broken political system, but this quick-fix solution is dangerously shortsighted. The truth is, term limits do little to solve the real problems at the heart of American politics and could actually make things worse. Here’s why term limits are not just ineffective—they’re a disaster waiting to happen.

The Harsh Reality: Term Limits Are a Band-Aid on a Bullet Wound

The appeal of term limits lies in their simplicity: kick out entrenched politicians and make way for fresh faces. But the idea is nothing more than political “cotton candy”—sweet on the surface, empty underneath. In reality, term limits lead to deeper problems and ignore the complex power structures that actually drive corruption.

1. Losing the Good with the Bad

Term limits don’t just remove the bad actors—they force out effective, ethical, and experienced politicians who are genuinely working for their constituents. Leaders like Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, and Matt Gaetz have dedicated themselves to meaningful change, only to be cut down by a one-size-fits-all rule. The cost of losing competent leaders is high, and the knowledge they’ve built over years of service is irreplaceable.

2. Creating a Revolving Door for Elites and Lobbyists

Supporters of term limits claim they would disrupt the “Swamp,” but the opposite is true. With a constant rotation of inexperienced politicians, the influence of lobbyists and elites would only grow. Term limits encourage a revolving door culture, where power shifts from elected officials to unelected insiders who hold the real control. Rather than draining the swamp, term limits would make it even murkier.

3. Superficial Solutions Hide the Real Problem: Distance from Constituents

The core issue isn’t how long a politician stays in office—it’s how disconnected they are from the people they represent. Federal representatives have become distant from local concerns, especially when the bulk of their campaign financing comes from wealthy donors in faraway states. Term limits do nothing to address this distance, leaving ordinary Americans without a voice.

The Real Fix: Campaign Finance Reform and Accountability Measures

If we want genuine change, we need to dig deeper and address the root causes of political corruption and detachment from voters. Real reform requires rethinking the incentives and the flow of money that drive our political system, not just shuffling people in and out of office.

1. Keep Campaign Financing Local

The first step is to restrict campaign contributions to the area a politician represents. No more donations from billionaires on the coasts influencing a Midwestern district. This would force politicians to stay accountable to their voters, not outside interests.

2. Tie Politicians’ Salaries to the Median Income

Politicians should live and breathe the realities of their constituents. Their salary shouldn’t exceed the median income of the area they represent. This ensures they are motivated to improve the local economy instead of padding their own pockets. Lower local income would mean a lower salary for the representative, making them truly invested in improving conditions for their district.

3. End the Perks: No Special Benefits or Retirement Packages

Public service should be about service, not personal gain. By eliminating cushy benefits and retirement packages, we make it clear that politics is a duty, not a career. Politicians should plan for their futures like the rest of us—without expecting special treatment.

4. Dismantle PACs and Super PACs

The influence of PACs and Super PACs has distorted political priorities, allowing special interests to dictate policy. Eliminating these entities would refocus elections on grassroots support, giving voters the power back and ensuring a more accountable and transparent political process.

Term Limits Don’t Solve the Real Problem—They Distract from It

The idea of term limits is appealing because it offers an easy, feel-good solution to complex problems. But it’s nothing more than a surface-level distraction that ignores the real issues: unaccountable campaign financing, incentives misaligned with public service, and the undue influence of money in politics. We don’t need term limits; we need a radical overhaul of the way our system functions.

Conclusion: Don’t Fall for the Easy Answer—Demand Real Change

America deserves better than a superficial fix. Real accountability starts with campaign finance reform, local accountability, and dismantling the structures that let elites control our political landscape. Term limits are not the answer—they’re a dangerous fantasy that distracts from the real reforms we need to save our democracy.

39 Likes
2

In essence remove the incentives for a career politician. Those who desire to work for the people will stay? Like it was in the beginning, I believe there was an understood rotation. I could be wrong.

6 Likes
3

You can implement term limits and make other changes, it’s not an ‘either-or’ issue.

6 Likes
4

I agree with this, and I’d also add that as voters, we can’t afford to get complacent with anyone—even the ‘good’ ones—because they’re working within a system skilled at corruption. It’s up to us to hold them accountable; the call of the swamp is strong. If we stop paying attention, thinking that term limits alone will ‘fix’ the system, we’ll miss the problems creeping in. Real change requires ongoing vigilance from all of us, not just one-size-fits-all solutions.

6 Likes
5

Did you read the entire proposal?
Why would you limit great leadership and stewardship?

1 Like
6

Excellent point! I also think that politicians need to sign an agreement within the party platform they use that outlines what causes they will never sway on, and if they violate that agreement they should be immediately recalled. I just do not think this would be popular or as reasonable.

5 Likes
7

An extreme oversimplification but in essence, you are mostly correct.

8

For me, this is encompassed by the commitment to uphold the Constitution and defend the Bill of Rights.

2 Likes
9

Do you think we should repeal the 22nd Amendment?

10

I see where you are going, and I would not repeal it. However, I would repeal the 17th though.
Having a President for too long is too akin to the normalization of a king or chancellor or monarch etc…
I do not subscribe to the idea that a Representative, Senator, or other elected official is anywhere near as powerful as a potential Commander in Chief. Because of this, I recognize that a President’s time in power should be limited, while Congress should be STRICTLY and Explicitly Accountable to its Constituents.

2 Likes
11

If the 17th Amendment were repealed - go back to appointment of Senators by State Legislatures, with perhaps an additional ability for State Legislatures to recall their Senators under specific circumstances (perhaps a 2/3rds majority vote?) - how would you then feel about term limits just for members of the House of Representatives?

1 Like
12

AND that’s why it is accompanied by not allowing lobbying

4 Likes
13

One would think so, but it seems that nowadays the oath they take is loosely interpreted at best.

1 Like
14

Very well explained! I always thought that term limits would be the quick fix we needed, but this point of view offers well balanced solutions.

5 Likes
15

You’ve presented some very legitimate arguments.

However, I don’t think the founders ever intended for career politicians.

You sight the good work of Thomas Massie, Rand Paul, Jim Jordan, etc.

I believe that changing the culture and requiring fresh faces will naturally attract more constitutionally aligned actors.

I agree with your points on PAC money and localizing campaign funds.

Public Service was intended to be something we are called to when our unique voice is needed for the greater good of the country. Public Service should have a intrinsic cost to it. It is not a glorious job. It’s rigorous, painful work to operate within a beaurocracy.

A link to my proposal for term-limits: Enhancing Democratic Accountability: A Policy Proposal for Congressional and Leadership Term Limits

3 Likes
16

Here is another thought I have about this whole idea. Even with the limited involvement I’ve had in local elections (NYS) over the past few years, what I’ve seen has made me sick to my stomach. So many people behind the scenes are controlling those who want to run for office. The consultants, advisors, campaign managers, and higher-ups in local committees watch over everyone at every turn. These individuals hold a LOT of power, and 99% of the public has zero idea who they are or that they even exist. The advisor who meets with someone excited to run for office for the first time and says, ‘Oh, you don’t want to say it that way; take this angle instead…’—they’re the deep state in our local communities, the overseers, the ones really pulling the strings even in small towns. I’m saying this because even when people are no longer in office, there’s still a lot to do to keep the swamp clean and support those currently in power who are being pushed and pulled by these invisible forces.

4 Likes
17

I was cheering in joy as I found a fellow who understood this problem. Until we got to financing.

While correctly identifying the issue that is the lack of locality it treats the symptom. The cause of non-local funding is the need for mass media to reach the non-local constituency as representation in the House balloons to nearly 1,000,000 people per seat. You can not participate in a modern election without mailers and adverts on every available means of mass communication.

In 1790, with a population of 3.9 million, the first Congress of 65 represented 60,000 each. Consider their horror if they were told the entirety of Congress would comprise only 4 men, which would match our current ratio. The second Congress was reapportioned according to the Census, with a total of 105 to represent less than 40,000 each. The Apportionment Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original set of fixes that comprised what became the Bill of Rights, stipulated between 30-50,000.

Our system of Government was never intended for a locked House of UN-Representatives. While the Apportionment Act of 1911 stands, while Congress remains at 435, power and money will continue to funnel into the hands of the few. And the people will not have the leverage they need to counter this force. Making the election system local with proper representation levels alleviates the need to rely on mass media and gives each voter a greater share of power over the Congressman. Whats more, flooding Congress with the additional Representatives makes it more difficult for a monied interest to purchase votes in their favor.

While there may have been practical concerns to limiting the physical size of the body in earlier times, modern technology has rendered those objections moot. Congress could support a governing body that keeps the original intent of local representation in the House. It must be UnCapped.

3 Likes
18

I am highly suspicious of the idea of assuming that ‘modern technology’ will render any complications ‘moot’.

19

The objection in question here is the practicality of putting together a debating body of 6,000 people and doing a vote. To achieve local representation equal to the original intent when the system was created we require that number of seats, and it is wholly impractical to accomplish with 18th century technology.

Not today. 6,000 people can easily raise issues, share “floor” time in the presentations, and vote because of modern technology. There is not an administrative impossibility acting as a barrier that should impede implementation.

20

Who would determine “great leadership / stewardship”? Republicans? Democrats? You? Me? And what would happen if we don’t agree? Those making the decisions on who should stay or go now become the new power brokers and influence peddlers.

2 Likes